Why Anabaptists and Mennonites are not Orthodox

[Bootstrap]

On that last point, once the church becomes closely allied with a political system, there's an inherent conflict of interest. It has to constantly choose which kingdom to serve. And history tells us it doesn't always choose correctly.

[haithabu]

That teaching of the hierarchy of scriptural authority is not to be found in Scripture.

I think Scripture does teach that the Old Testament is veiled to those who do not know Jesus, and only through Jesus is the veil removed:

Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

And this rhymes with what Galatians 3 tells us about the relationship between the two covenants:

Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

I think this does imply a hierarchy of Scripture in which Jesus is the key to the entire Bible, and the Old Covenant is unveiled in Christ, who is the lens through which we regard all Scripture.

I have no problem with what you describe as an hermeneutic principle. That's not at all the same thing as a hierarchy of Scripture though. I understand the Law of Moses as being just as authoritative within its scope as the gospels or epistles are within theirs. The limits to the Law's scope as to its applicability in time and space are contained within its text, there is no need to superimpose a theory of Scriptural supercession onto our reading of it to keep it in right relation to the new covenant.

This may seem like a picky distinction but I think it's important, because it will determine whether someone will even bother to study the OT instead of avoiding it.

[MaxPC]

I have no problem with what you describe as an hermeneutic principle. That's not at all the same thing as a hierarchy of Scripture though. I understand the Law of Moses as being just as authoritative within its scope as the gospels or epistles are within theirs. The limits to the Law's scope as to its applicability in time and space are contained within its text, there is no need to superimpose a theory of Scriptural supercession onto our reading of it to keep it in right relation to the new covenant.

This may seem like a picky distinction but I think it's important, because it will determine whether someone will even bother to study the OT instead of avoiding it.

I agree. Hermeneutic principles as they apply to Scripture are quite broad according to our definitions. Exegesis is "where it's at" if you would like to get into praxis of Scripture to community life, personal life and family. The idea of the hierarchy in CW and EO is one of tradition primarily with some Scriptural interpretations to support it.

There are tons of blogs that banter about this but at the end of the day, what are we as individuals actually doing to live out the NT? Theories are fine but on the day of judgement we'll be accountable for our lives and how we've treated others.
[bible]Romans 14, 10-12[/bible]
[bible]2 Corinthians 10,5[/bible]
[bible]1 Peter 4,5[/bible]

[lesterb]

I view it more as a succession of revelation. God revealed himself a bit at a time. The moral code of Moses' law revealed an important part of God, his view of sin. But the prophets went on and revealed even more about God that took away from the legalistic tone of the Law.

But the NT reveals God even more completely as a God of who loves sinners while hating sin, as well as a god of mercy as well as justice.

Excuse the layman's terminology. Theological terms don't really attract me.

[haithabu]

I view it more as a succession of revelation. God revealed himself a bit at a time. The moral code of Moses' law revealed an important part of God, his view of sin. But the prophets went on and revealed even more about God that took away from the legalistic tone of the Law.

But the NT reveals God even more completely as a God of who loves sinners while hating sin, as well as a god of mercy as well as justice.

Excuse the layman's terminology. Theological terms don't really attract me.

I agree with that.

The way I think of it is in Matthew 23 where Jesus refers to "the weightier provisions of the Law" - justice and mercy and faithfulness. Now there is nothing in the Law of Moses that I know of that explicitly commands all those things or give them priority as more "weighty". (Though you do begin to see it in the prophets.)

But Jesus is referring to the law behind the Law - the moral principles which underlay it. They are implicit in the two great commandments but he spells it out more fully and clearly in his teachings.

[Bootstrap]

I view it more as a succession of revelation. God revealed himself a bit at a time. The moral code of Moses' law revealed an important part of God, his view of sin. But the prophets went on and revealed even more about God that took away from the legalistic tone of the Law.

But the NT reveals God even more completely as a God of who loves sinners while hating sin, as well as a god of mercy as well as justice.

This is close, but Paul tells us that New Covenant is a return to the faith covenant with Abraham, and treats the Law as a detour, a guardian added because of sin:

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

And in a lot of ways, salvation takes us back to the garden ... so there's movement in more than one direction.

[Bootstrap]

The way I think of it is in Matthew 23 where Jesus refers to "the weightier provisions of the Law" - justice and mercy and faithfulness. Now there is nothing in the Law of Moses that I know of that explicitly commands all those things or give them priority as more "weighty". (Though you do begin to see it in the prophets.)

But perhaps also in Deuteronomy? It takes a little reading between the lines, but I think it is there.

[Wayne in Maine]

Hierarchy may have been the wrong word, though absent the modern fundamentalist idea that the bible is a single book with a single author, the Anabaptists did seem to have a "canon within a canon", much as the Jews held the Law above the prophets.

I will say in answer to Neto that the consensus, or at least the common assumption of most scholars of Anabaptism I have read, is that the Anabaptists emphasized the New Testament, particularly the Sermon on the Mount and the sayings of Jesus. One writer, on making this observation, stated "Anabaptist New Testament Biblicism appears to have been shaped solely by an individual and collective desire to follow Christ."

John Oyer stated: "The Anabaptists always preferred the New Testament over the Old Testament..." and notes that in the 16th and 17th century scripture cited in preaching narrowed even further to the Gospels, particularly Matthew's gospel.

William Estep, in "The Anabaptist Story" calls attention to Anabaptist Christocentrism. They understood God's revelation to be progressive such that the New Testament alone was the rule of faith and practice for the Anabpatists. (William Estep, The Anabaptist Story 140-145)

[Valerie]

The Holy Spirit, was doing the work of creating the NT Church, which would include, but not be limited to- Jesus- nor to Scripture alone-

Certainly the Holy Spirit is essential. And the Holy Spirit speaks to believers gathered together, still leading us today.

But Anabaptists don't think any denomination has a monopoly on the Holy Spirit. We also think that when someone claims to speak for the Holy Spirit, what they say should be tested against Scripture. Christianity today should be mostly about the same kinds of things that it was mostly about in the New Testament.

We think that changed in a big way with Constantine. To us, state churches do not look much like the churches Jesus instituted. Here's Schaff talking about the loss of simple servant Christianity and the loss of the priesthood of all believers:

In the Nicene age the church laid aside her lowly servant-form, and put on a splendid imperial garb. She exchanged the primitive simplicity of her cultus for a richly colored multiplicity. She drew all the fine arts into the service of the sanctuary, and began her sublime creations of Christian architecture, sculpture, painting, poetry, and music. In place of the pagan temple and altar arose everywhere the stately church and the chapel in honor of Christ, of the Virgin Mary, of martyrs and saints. The kindred ideas of priesthood, sacrifice, and altar became more fully developed and more firmly fixed, as the outward hierarchy grew. The mass, or daily repetition of the atoning sacrifice of Christ by the hand of the priest, became the mysterious centre of the whole system of worship. The number of church festivals was increased; processions, and pilgrimages, and a multitude of significant and superstitious customs and ceremonies were introduced.

The public worship of God assumed, if we may so speak, a dramatic, theatrical character, which made it attractive and imposing to the mass of the people, who were as yet incapable, for the most part, of worshipping God in spirit and in truth. It was addressed rather to the eye and the ear, to feeling and imagination, than to intelligence and will. In short, we already find in the Nicene age almost all the essential features of the sacerdotal, mysterious, ceremonial, symbolical cultus of the Greek and Roman churches of the present day.

This enrichment and embellishment of the cultus was, on one hand, a real advance, and unquestionably had a disciplinary and educational power, like the hierarchical organization, for the training of the popular masses. But the gain in outward appearance and splendor was balanced by many a loss in simplicity and spirituality.

I find the Orthodox liturgy beautiful and worshipful, but I also find it quite unlike what we see in New Testament worship or in the earliest writings of the church such as the Didache.

A couple of thoughts- because I can agree with you for the most part- except for one thing- I still don't think that every single thing the NT church did & practiced was written down like a manual or text when it comes to worship. And as I read through 1 Corithians 12-14,, if we use that 'picture' of the Church as a representation of the NT Church, I think the Pentecostals are closest to the NT Church- because they are the only ones I have worshipped with that seem to take those chapters seriously-
So where does this leave us? I heard on Christian radio that at the time of the Reformation there was only one Church- Rome- and they of course at that period in history were doing some wrong things- thus the Reformation- however this pastor, when speaking (this last Sunday on radio) was incorrect- Rome was not the 'only' Church at the time, he was completely leaving out the Eastern Church that had been in existence since Jesus- and those Churches still exist today-
Archeological discoveries have taught, along with the earliest writers way more information about the "worship & practice' of the liturgical Church then what is written down in Scripture- don't forget that the NT was not used to start the Churches, Jesus chose Jews who embraced Him as Messiah, to start the Churches- they did not discard all things "Jewish"- this helped me to understand a lot of what we saw in visiting EO Churches of many ethnicities- for wherever His Apostles took the Gospel, they all 'practice' the same form of worship- does not mean they have been ifallible but it helps to read history along with the NT-and see the art, artifacts, etc- which explains a lot-

[Valerie]

I have a hard time seeing how focusing on Jesus’ words is a mistake.

Who said it was a mistake? Just a realization that Jesus words were, that He had much more to say, that they couldn't bear 'now' but that when He ascended the Holy Spirit would continue teaching- it's ot 'instead of' but 'in addition to'. If we can bear it-